A physicist's discovery begins an extraordinary odyssey
throughpride and prejudice in the scientific world.

By Dennis Crews

When the dust settled few were surprised to learn that the
ACLU had won. The trial had been theirs from the beginning. People
in attendance had seen primarily what the scientific establishment
wanted them to see, and when it was over things stayed pretty
much that way. Discover magazine's cover story on the trial,
"Judgment Day for Creationism," was derisively subtitled: "In
a showdown in Little Rock, creationists defend their scientific
claims—badly" (February 1982). On the day after the trial closed
ACLU attorney Bruce Ennis was quoted in the Arkansas Democrat:
"The state tried to prove there is scientific evidence for creation.
They failed not because of a lack of effort, but because that
evidence does not exist." Few readers had any way of knowing
how much relevant information had been either deftly discredited
by the ACLU strategists or spiked altogether by the media afterward.

Judge William Overton's evaluation of Gentry's research was
heavily influenced by the testimony of geologist Dalrymple, a
witness who had not even studied Gentry's work in the scientific
literature. Overton's judicial opinion stated the research to
have been "published almost ten years ago and have been the subject
of some discussion in the scientific community. The discoveries
have not, however, led to the formulation of any scientific hypothesis
or theory which would explain a relatively recent inception of
the earth or a worldwide flood. Gentry's discovery has been treated
as a minor mystery which will eventually be explained. It may
deserve further investigation, but the National Science Foundation
has not deemed it to be of sufficient import to support further
funding."27

Judge Overton's opinion inferred that other scientists could
find nothing of significance in Gentry's discovery, when in fact
his work had such troubling implications that silence was the
only weapon they could turn against him effectively. The crowning
irony of his opinion was this criticism of creation science:
"The methodology employed by creationists is another factor which
is indicative that their work is not science. A scientific theory
must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment
in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the
theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist
and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory."28

This was a most disturbing statement. The simple fact was
that Robert Gentry's work exemplified science at its highest
level. After discovering a natural phenomenon that seemed to
contradict accepted theory, he reserved final judgment and set
out with relentless energy to resolve the incongruity. Using
the most sophisticated research techniques he methodically exhausted
every possible avenue for a conventional explanation of the problem,
publishing his results in the open scientific literature for
all his colleagues to scrutinize—meanwhile becoming the world's
foremost expert in his field. The facts of his discovery continued
to confound evolutionary science. No one had ever produced a
shred of evidence that contradicted either his findings or his
conclusions.

Judge Overton's opinion was far more applicable to the science
establishment, whose attitude countered Gentry's with a perverse
symmetry. They unequivocally refused to reckon with facts that
did not fit the evolutionary model. Indeed, they failed to meet
their own criterion of scientific objectivity at its most fundamental
level—even going so far as to discredit an honest scientist who
brought coercive evidence against evolution to light. They cherished
and defended the doctrine of evolution with religious zeal, protecting
it from contradiction even at the cost of truth itself.

Retribution for Gentry's participation in the trial was not
long in coming. The January 1 and 8 issues of Science contained
a special report on the trial by reporter Roger Lewin. A careful
reading of his article revealed subtle inaccuracies that cast
the state's witnesses in an unfavorable light. Omission of key
phrases and twisted bits of testimony effectively portrayed Robert
Gentry as a person who himself did not consider creation science
to be true science, and who admitted that his research conclusions
were inspired by the Bible—both serious misrepresentations.
The article also contained a number of damaging perversions of
the exchange between Gentry and his cross-examiner that could
not be verified until four years later, when Gentry finally obtained
an audio tape of the proceedings. By then it was far too late.

Lewin's article in Science made it imperative for Gentry to
respond promptly with an attempt to clarify his position on several
critical points. Such rebuttals are customary in scientific journals,
particularly when the credibility of individuals hangs in the
balance, but this time no such courtesy was extended. The editor
simply stated, "While it is understandable that you might have
preferred a different emphasis or different details in Lewin's
account of your testimony, we do not find that, in this case,
his presentation needs clarification." The damage to his reputation
would never be undone.